This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

The difference often can be attributed to the quality of defence counsel an accused can afford or otherwise secure. That's an unfortunate reality of the justice system.

Robert Baltovich had excellent appeal lawyers.

Article Continued Below

He also was the beneficiary of a dreadfully slanted charge to the jury by the judge at his first trial – in 1992, when he was convicted – which provided ample grounds for appeal, and was granted on specific grounds. Not, as has commonly and casually been asserted, because his legal team pointed to Paul Bernardo as a legitimate suspect in the murder of Baltovich's girlfriend, Elizabeth Bain.

Robert Baltovich's excellent lawyers have excellent friends and acolytes in the media.

In fact, the appeal judges had pointedly declined to consider the merits of Bernardo-as-killer scenario when they overturned the verdict and ordered a new trial, basing their decision on errors in law as committed by the trial judge.

Baltovich served eight years behind bars before being freed on bail pending retrial and even, for a time, worked in the Star's library. That retrial – 18 years after Bain disappeared, her body never found – collapsed when it had barely begun. Evidentiary rules had changed since 1992, key witnesses who'd testified the first time around were excluded, laws pertaining to after-the-fact conduct had shifted, memory of events had deteriorated among those expected to testify. Another development, which is too complicated to be explained here, had essentially eliminated Bain's father as a witness at the new trial.

All these factors woven together presaged what happened in the courtroom on April 22, 2008: Crown Attorney Phil Kotanen called no evidence, instead inviting the jury to bring back a not-guilty verdict, and that they obligingly did.

There was no trial, which may or may not have been a cause for "regret," as Baltovich mused in his above email – quoted here to provide a bit of insight into the man's character. No trial, but one colossally pro-Baltovich crime book account, so the non-murderer certainly got his version of events out there, at least.

No public inquiry either, despite Baltovich signing off on the email with that smug little see-ya to a reporter he was palpably baiting. (It wasn't me.)

And now, as announced Wednesday, no compensation for either Baltovich or another wrongfully convicted individual, Anthony Hanemaayer.

Attorney General Chris Bentley explained the government's view on these two men and what distinguishes their circumstances from others – most notably Steven Truscott and Guy Paul Morin, though the latter was rewarded in an out-of-court settlement after bringing civil suit. Bentley suggested an acquittal was not quite sufficient to meet the financial compensation threshold; something closer to a finding of "factual innocence'' was required.

If Baltovich proceeds with his claim via civil lawsuit, he will get the opportunity to lay out whatever grievances he has against cops who investigated the murder and prosecutors who brought the case to court. But surely "suffering'' – for Baltovich, those years spent in jail and whatever odour of guilt may still hang over his head in the court of public opinion – must also be assessed alongside actual, quantifiable events: What a jury believed to be the correct verdict on the evidence presented to them.

There is no suggestion of malice or negligence, no allegation of a deliberate miscarriage of justice and, thus far, no corroborated accusation of a compromised police investigation.

"That doesn't mean it wasn't there," argues James Lockyer, notable activist for the wrongfully accused. He mounted the appeal, though he won't be involved in any civil case should Baltovich go that route. "The appeal we presented had stacks of undisclosed evidence – evidence that the Crown had not shared with the defence at the first trial."

The appeal judges chose not to hear that material, just as they chose not to hear evidence that allegedly pointed to Bernardo as Bain's killer.

"My view is that, if it's acknowledged that someone was wrongfully convicted, they should be entitled as a right to compensation," Lockyer adds.

It is not uncommon, following an acquittal, for many to believe in their bones that a person is guilty. Nor is it uncommon for the Crown to drop a prosecution in the absence – for so many reasons – of any reasonable expectation of a conviction.

I can say Baltovich is innocent, the court says so, a jury said so, but I don't have to believe it. I daresay there are those in the ministry who feel, still, that the original verdict was correct.

To this day, however, Baltovich and his groupies cannot countenance anybody disbelieving his innocence. It's often this faction against Bain's parents, who remain convinced that Baltovich murdered their daughter and have repeatedly said so. Prior to the retrial, the Bains urged prosecutors to cut a deal with the accused. They didn't care about jail time, wanted only for Baltovich to reveal where Elizabeth's remains could be found so that the young woman could be given a proper burial.

But Baltovich is not guilty of murder and that's no mere technicality. Thus, of course, he can't possibly know where that poor girl's rotting body lies.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com